Jeremy Corbyn, Battle of Britain Day and the Politics of Commemoration

Tuesday marked the official date of the 75th Anniversary of the Battle of Britain. Fifteen September has long been recognised as that date, in part, because it was shortly after the aerial battle over London on that day that the Hitler indefinitely postponed Operation Sea Lion. However, rather than being a moment of silent contemplation and commemoration about the role played by the RAF and the other services in the Battle of Britain, it seems we woke up to a debate over the new leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn. Corbyn is an old stye socialist and his appointment has, or will, arguably, take the Labour Party back 20 or 30 years; New New Labour is a return to Old Labour? Now I have no issue with Corbyn, though I do not agree with his ideological stance on some issues, in particular defence; however, I do think his appointment is a positive step as it will at least give some choice to voters. For too long the mainstream parties have fought over the middle ground and Corbyn will, hopefully, offer some genuinely new ideas. Now, given the character of British politics, and the unwillingness to change our electoral system, it is, of course, open to question whether Corbyn is electable; however, that is a discussion for another time…

However, what about the Battle of Britain. Well, the issue appears to stem from how he appeared at the ceremony held at the St Paul’s Cathedral to mark the commemoration of the 75th Anniversary. The media have crawled all over the fact that he did not sing the national anthem and that his appearance was perceived as less than respectful to the occasion. Most pictures showed him stood close to the current Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Andrew Pulford, who, of course, was dressed in uniform with medals and associated regalia suitable for the occasion. The juxtaposition should not be lost on anyone, and that is what the media were going for. While critics have suggested he looked scruffy and that he was forced to be there, it has been questioned whether it really mattered. In my opinion it does. I have no issue with him not singing the national anthem as long as he illustrated a degree of respect through it – we know Corbyn is a republican, but, in my opinion, there is a time and place for political stances and a commemoration event is not one of them. For me the key issue was his appearance and this really relates to how politicians project themselves. The image created, whether intended of not, was one of questionable respect for the past. It should, however, be noted that Corbyn praised his parents work during the war and that, despite his stance on defence, he had the utmost respect for the sacrifices made during the Second World War. However, we know how the media can spin an image – just think of Michael Foot at the Cenotaph in 1981, which has been the parallel referenced all week.

Does all of this matter? The simple answer, in my opinion, is yes. The memorialisation and commemoration of the past is a highly charged and political matter. One only has to look at the lack of western leaders at the recent commemorations in China to mark VJ Day. Clearly, a decision was taken by those leaders not to attend because it was felt that the event was deemed to be more about China flexing its military muscle rather than a commemoration of the past. We also saw similar last year at events to mark the 70th Anniversary of D-Day. Buried behind the rhetoric, there was clearly a message being delivered about Russia’s actions in the Ukraine. The list can go on. Such events are an opportunity to deliver messages, either consciously or unconsciously, and an important element of this is image. Image is a key aspect about how messages are delivered to your prospective audience. In this respect, Corbyn delivered a message that suggested that he did not care. I genuinely do not think that this was his aim; however, that is how it has been perceived as such in the media. Indeed, it is a shame that this is what the media decided to focus on rather than the commemorations themselves. That in itself is a damming indictment of western media and the issues they focus on. There were bigger and more important issues that should have been on the front pages. It should, however, be noted that this is not, as James Kightly discussed on his site in 2010, an issue limited to Corbyn. The then newly elected Prime Minister, David Cameron, made his own faux pas around the time of the 70th Anniversary in 2010 when he described the UK as the junior partner in 1940! As such, this is not the first, nor will it be the last, time that politics gets in the way of the commemoration of the past.

2 responses to “Jeremy Corbyn, Battle of Britain Day and the Politics of Commemoration”

Yes, the point about Cameron is well put. Quite apart from anything else we had no ‘partner’ in 1940. His knowledge of history is tenuous to say the least. Melvyn Bragg was astonished that he (Cameron) had no knowledge of the Magna Carta. He put it down to a poor education. .

Forthcoming Talks

‘Air Power and the Transatlantic Alliance during the First World War,’ Keynote Address, Over Here: Transatlantic Connections in the First World War, A One-Day Conference organised by the University of Chichester, 1 September 2017. More details here.